Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 57 references

Three-neuron population dynamics and three-qubit repetition-code recovery share the same generator structure and the same steady-state error residual, V∞ = 4γ/(κ+4γ).

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 07:30 UTC pith:W27N2DUC

load-bearing objection A useful structural dictionary and a clean toy-model identity, but the matching V∞ is built into the assumed biological generator rather than derived from the stated neural dynamics. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.20534 v1 pith:W27N2DUC submitted 2026-07-10 physics.bio-ph quant-ph

Quantum error correction and biological error correction: A structural analogy between qubits and neurons

Ian Whitehouse , An{\i}l Zengino\u{g}lu , Franz Klein , Mohe Edeen Abu Maizer , Wilson Smith , Skylar Chan , Siri Duddella , Wolfgang Losert This is my paper
classification physics.bio-ph quant-ph
keywords quantum error correctionbiological error correctionneural population codingthree-qubit repetition codeMarkov jump processconstraint violationmetastable dynamicsstructural analogy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Quantum error correction and biological error correction in neural populations may be the same organizational pattern, not merely a loose analogy. This paper makes that claim concrete by reducing a minimal three-neuron model to a Markov jump process over binary configurations and showing that its generator has exactly the same structure as the continuous-time recovery generator of the three-qubit repetition code. In both systems, the noise rate γ and the recovery rate κ appear in the same places, and the steady-state constraint violation is identical: V∞ = 4γ/(κ+4γ). The paper argues that this shared structure supports a two-way transfer of ideas—from neural circuits to new adaptive quantum decoders, and from quantum codes to a quantitative vocabulary for neural reliability.

Core claim

At the quantitative level, the central claim is that a minimal three-neuron recurrently coupled population with bistable subthreshold dynamics reduces, in the metastable regime (where within-basin relaxation is fast compared with barrier crossings), to a binary Markov jump process over configurations (b1,b2,b3). The generator of this process has the same form as the continuous-time evolution of the three-qubit bit-flip repetition code: independent single-unit flips at rate γ, plus a majority-pull recovery generator at rate κ. The steady-state constraint-violation probability is 4γ/(κ+4γ) in both systems. The authors stress that this is an analogy of roles, not an identification of physical m

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the 'structural dictionary' that translates QEC objects to biological ones: physical qubits to neurons, logical qubits to low-dimensional cognitive variables, the codespace to a neural attractor manifold, stabilizer checks to circuit-level consistency constraints, syndrome bits to mismatch signals, and the decoder to fast relaxation dynamics plus slower adaptive updates. The quantitative workhorse is the generator identity between the continuous-time bit-flip noise with recovery rate κ for the three-qubit repetition code and the three-neuron master equation with independent single-unit flips at rate γ and a majority-vote recovery generator at rate κ. This shared st

Load-bearing premise

The entire quantitative match rests on the reduction of real neurons to independent binary units that flip at a constant rate γ and are pulled back to consensus at a constant rate κ; if neural noise is correlated or the metastable-regime separation of timescales fails, the master equation and the matching steady-state residual do not describe actual population dynamics.

What would settle it

Measure, in a recurrently coupled three-neuron (or larger) population, the single-unit flip rate γ and the majority-pull recovery rate κ independently, and compare the observed stationary probability of violating a pairwise constraint to 4γ/(κ+4γ). If the data deviate significantly, or if the constraint violation does not saturate to any finite value of that form, the structural identity fails for biological circuits.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Neural population codes can be analyzed using the QEC vocabulary of protected codespace, syndrome, decoder, and code distance, giving quantitative measures of reliability.
  • Biological error control, which is local, continuous in time, and adaptive, becomes a concrete template for continuous-time, adaptive decoders in quantum error correction.
  • The projection-versus-damping distinction is general: exact syndrome recovery returns the state to the codespace, while continuous recovery leaves a finite steady-state residual under persistent noise.
  • The residual formula V∞ = 4γ/(κ+4γ) predicts that the off-manifold probability is governed only by the ratio γ/κ.
  • The authors argue the dictionary is a structural mapping of roles rather than physical mechanisms, so the correspondence can guide new circuit and algorithm designs without invoking quantum effects in the brain.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • An experimenter could measure γ and κ separately in a recurrent neural population and test whether constraint violations obey 4γ/(κ+4γ); if not, the biological half of the analogy is a modeling artifact.
  • Because only the generator structure matters, any classical device with independent unit noise plus majority-pull recovery will show the same residual law; the result likely generalizes beyond both qubits and neurons.
  • The analogy suggests that continuous, adaptive recovery—rather than cyclic discrete readout—is a design principle worth testing for fault-tolerant quantum devices under time-varying noise.
  • If neurons tune κ dynamically (e.g., through synaptic strength or neuromodulation), then the steady-state residual is a held value that could serve as a target for homeostatic control.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper argues that quantum error correction (QEC) and biological error correction in neural circuits share a common organizational pattern—redundant encoding, constraint checks, syndrome-like signals, and recovery dynamics—and makes this analogy quantitative through a structural dictionary (Table I) and two toy models. On the quantum side, it studies the three-qubit repetition code with discrete and continuous-time recovery, obtaining a steady-state constraint violation V∞(Q)=4γ/(κ+4γ). On the biological side, it starts from a coupled Ornstein–Uhlenbeck/LIF model of three neurons (Eq. 31) and claims a reduction to a binary Markov jump process (Eq. 35) whose stationary distribution yields the same V∞(B)=4γ/(κ+4γ). The paper stresses that the analogy is structural, not physical, and that no quantum effects are assumed in neurons.

Significance. If the quantitative identity were established from the biological dynamics, the paper would provide a concrete bridge between QEC and neural population coding, with a shared steady-state residual that could be tested in simulations or experiments. The structural dictionary is clearly organized and likely useful for framing future work. The paper is honest about its status as a minimal construction and does not overclaim biological mechanism. Its main value is conceptual: it gives a vocabulary and a toy model for comparing error correction across physical and biological systems. The quantitative matching is, however, to a large extent built into the chosen biological generator rather than derived from the coupled neural model, which limits the significance of the numerical agreement.

major comments (4)
  1. [IV C, Eq. (35)] The reduction from the coupled OU/LIF model Eq. (31) to the binary master equation Eq. (35) is not derived. The coupling term in Eq. (31) affects all Kramers escape rates, including error-creating transitions (e.g., 000→001) and transitions among non-codewords (e.g., 001→011), so the rates are configuration-dependent. Treating noise flips as constant γ and recovery as constant κ is an ansatz, not a consequence of τ_relax≪γ^{-1},κ^{-1} and independent noise. Without a derivation of rate separability, the equality V∞(B)=4γ/(κ+4γ) in Eq. (38) is a property of the assumed generator, not of the biological model. The caveat in Sec. V does not address this missing step.
  2. [IV B, Eq. (29)] The steady-state violation V∞(Q)=4γ/(κ+4γ) is asserted without derivation. It is correct: since the recovery map R(Q) projects onto the codespace, R†(S_j)=I, so d⟨S_j⟩/dt = -(4γ+κ)⟨S_j⟩+κ, yielding V∞(Q)=4γ/(κ+4γ). Please include this derivation (or at least a sketch). As written, the quantum half of the 'matching' result is unproven.
  3. [IV C, Eq. (35) and Fig. 3] The numerical experiment in Fig. 3 simulates the phenomenological generator Eq. (35), not the coupled SDE Eq. (31). Therefore Fig. 3 does not demonstrate that the biological model Eq. (31) exhibits the claimed behavior. If Eq. (35) is intended as a postulated minimal model, this should be stated explicitly, and the language 'reduces' in Sec. IV C and 'permits a reduction' should be softened accordingly.
  4. [V, Conclusions] The biological generator Eq. (35) is explicitly constructed to mirror the quantum recovery generator Eq. (25), and the matching V∞ is therefore to a large extent a consequence of this construction. The paper acknowledges this by calling it a 'minimal construction,' but the conclusion that 'both systems display the same distinction between projection and damping recovery' overstates the independence of the result. The text should distinguish between a structural consistency check (the same abstract generator yields the same steady-state residual) and an empirical prediction from the full neural dynamics (Eq. 31), which is not established.
minor comments (4)
  1. [IV C, Eq. (33)] The Kramers rate formula for γ is given without derivation or citation. Adding a reference for Kramers escape would be helpful. Also, the notation U''(v*_-) and U''(v*_b) is not defined; presumably double derivatives of the effective potential.
  2. [IV C, Eq. (34)] The tilted potential U_c is written as U(v) - (w_couple Σ φ(v*_j)) v, but the linear term in v is dimensional and the sign of the tilt depends on the majority state. Clarify how this relates to the actual potential in Eq. (31).
  3. [IV C, around Eq. (35)] The text says 'three features of Eq. (31) permit a reduction to discrete dynamics' but the features are described afterwards; reorganize so the logic is clearer.
  4. [Table I] The dictionary is clear, but the entry for mismatch signals m_j(B) is not used in the quantitative model. A sentence noting that m_j(B) is a conceptual analog not yet formalized in the toy model would prevent confusion.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

The matching steady-state violation V∞ is built into the model definition: Eq. (35) is introduced as the classical counterpart of Eq. (25), so Eq. (38)=Eq. (29) is a restatement of the ansatz rather than an independent prediction.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Sec. IV C, Eqs. (35) and (38), compared to Sec. IV B, Eq. (29)]
    "Collecting the independent flip generator and the majority-pull generator gives dp/dt = γ∑3i=1(πi−I)p + κ(R(B)c,b − I)p (35) ... Eq. (35) is the classical counterpart of Eq. 25: πi replaces XiρXi, and R(B) replaces the recovery channel (R(Q)(ρ)−ρ), with γ and κ now classical rates ... V(B)∞ = ... = 4γ/(κ+4γ) (38) matching the quantum steady-state violation V(Q)∞ of Eq. (29) for this reduced model."

    The biological generator is explicitly defined as the classical counterpart of the quantum generator, with the same single-flip rate γ and the same form of recovery term at rate κ. The stationary cancellation γa=(γ+κ)b is a direct consequence of that posited eight-state generator, so the equal-weight stationary distribution and V∞=4γ/(κ+4γ) follow from the same algebra as the quantum case. Eq. (38) therefore does not test or derive the matching from Eq. (31); it restates the chosen generator structure in biological notation.

full rationale

The central quantitative identity is circular in a narrow, explicit sense: Eq. (35) is introduced to be the classical counterpart of Eq. (25), and Eq. (38) then matches Eq. (29) by construction. The paper acknowledges this by describing it as a 'minimal construction' and by keeping γ and κ symbolic; no parameter is fitted and no empirical quantity is predicted from fitted data. However, the broader structural dictionary (population coding, attractor manifolds, mismatch/syndrome roles) is anchored in independent literature, and load-bearing self-citations are not present: Refs. [35], [50], [51] support the future-work algorithmic discussion, not the V∞ identity. The separate concern that the reduction from the coupled OU model (31) to the binary master equation (35) is assumed rather than derived—recovery assigned a configuration-independent rate κ and the noise rate γ—means the matching V∞ is an artifact of the generator ansatz; this is a modeling limitation the paper itself concedes ('the reduction to a binary code relies on the metastable regime and on treating single-unit noise as independent'). Thus the partial circularity is real but confined to the quantitative matching; the paper's qualitative analogy retains independent content.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 4 axioms · 3 invented entities

The central quantitative claim rests on the symbolic rates γ and κ, on the metastable binary reduction of a continuous neuron model, and on the structural dictionary that defines the analogy. The dictionary mappings are assumed, not independently evidenced. The matching V∞ formula is a consequence of the model definitions rather than a parameter-free prediction.

free parameters (1)
  • γ (noise rate) and κ (recovery rate) = symbolic; illustrative values γ=1, κ=12 used in quantum simulation
    These rates define both generators (Eqs. 25, 35) and the steady-state violation V∞ = 4γ/(κ+4γ). They are not fitted to data; they are free model parameters. The central claim does not depend on specific values.
axioms (4)
  • standard math Kramers rate formula for escape over a double-well barrier (Eq. 33)
    Used to set the transition rate γ in the biological model. It is a standard result from stochastic dynamics, but its application to the LIF/OU model is a modeling choice.
  • domain assumption Metastable regime: relaxation within a basin is fast compared to inter-basin transitions (τ_relax ≪ γ⁻¹, κ⁻¹), permitting reduction to discrete configurations
    This is stated in Section IV C and is essential for the master-equation reduction (Eq. 35). It is not validated against biophysical parameters.
  • domain assumption Treating w_couple majority pull as a static tilt with a constant escape rate κ
    The paper assumes majority neurons are static when evaluating a minority neuron's escape (Section IV C). This ignores time-dependent fluctuations of the majority and leads to a single effective rate κ.
  • ad hoc to paper Structural dictionary mapping stabilizer checks to circuit constraints, ancillas to interneurons/astrocytes, etc. (Table I)
    These mappings are posited by the authors to define the analogy. They are not derived from data and serve as the interpretive framework of the paper.
invented entities (3)
  • Biological codespace / neural manifold M(B) no independent evidence
    purpose: The set of valid population-activity patterns that implement particular values of the low-dimensional variable X(B); the biological analogue of the quantum code space C(Q).
    The paper assumes neural activity lives on such a manifold, citing attractor-network and population-coding literature, but does not provide a new falsifiable handle outside the paper.
  • Mismatch signals m_j(B) no independent evidence
    purpose: Biological analogues of syndrome bits, realized as deviations of activity from the manifold or prediction errors.
    These are conceptual placeholders in the dictionary; the paper suggests implementations but does not identify a specific measurable signal in real circuits.
  • Ancillary biological degrees of freedom a_k(B) (interneurons, oscillatory modes, possibly astrocytes) no independent evidence
    purpose: Biological analogues of ancilla qubits that relay syndrome-like information without directly encoding the variable of interest.
    The paper explicitly lists these as potential ancilla analogs (Section III B), but does not provide evidence that they play this specific role.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 14841 in / 9829 out tokens · 104280 ms · 2026-08-02T07:30:58.213946+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We draw a structural analogy between quantum error correction (QEC) and error handling in neural circuits with respect to their redundant encodings and constraint-based inferences. In QEC, logical information is embedded in a protected codespace within a larger Hilbert space. A set of commuting checks (e.g. stabilizer constraints) is repeatedly evaluated to produce an error syndrome that identifies which constraints were violated without directly revealing the logical state. A decoder then maps the syndrome to a recovery operation that returns the system to the codespace and suppresses logical failure below a threshold. Neural circuits exhibit error-control strategies that can be viewed through a related biological error correction (BEC) pattern: information is distributed across multiple neurons (redundant encoding), yielding reliable collective activity from error-prone unit operations of individual neurons. The structural analogy with QEC raises the question whether collective activity may be constrained on lower-dimensional manifolds (a biological codespace), allowing recurrent circuit dynamics and mismatch signals to function as syndrome-like indicators of constraint violations, driving fast corrective dynamics and slower adaptive updates. Our structural analogy also suggests that new insights into brain-inspired algorithms for collective information processing may inform novel QEC approaches. We perform numerical experiments using simplified models of qubit and neuron dynamics to illustrate the analogy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.20534 by An{\i}l Zengino\u{g}lu, Franz Klein, Ian Whitehouse, Mohe Edeen Abu Maizer, Siri Duddella, Skylar Chan, Wilson Smith, Wolfgang Losert.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. An illustration of the structural analogy between QEC and BEC. Each system protects information by moving from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Numerical simulation of the three-qubit repetition code comparing discrete and continuous recovery. Left: logical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The biological counterpart to Fig. 2: a numerical simulation of a three-neuron population code. Left: codespace [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Neural population coding and biological error correction Neurons encode information, including sensory stimuli, through a phenomenon known as population coding [14]. A significant amount of prior work has focused on how stimuli are encoded through population coding, which is essential for understanding how neurons represent com- plex, high-dimensional sig...

  2. [2]

    Beniaguev et al

    Individual neuron complexity and population coding Neurons are significantly more complex than qubits, a feature that makes them less analogous than this compari- son might suggest. Beniaguev et al. show that modeling a single neuron, with its N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) re- ceptors, requires a 5 hidden layer artificial neural network, while a neuron with...

  3. [3]

    core structural elements, presented in Sec. IIIA,

  4. [4]

    checks, syndromes, and ancillary degrees of freedom, presented in Sec. IIIB,

  5. [5]

    IIIC, and

    decoding and correction dynamics, presented in Sec. IIIC, and

  6. [6]

    decoding

    design, evolution, and thresholds, presented in Sec. IIID. A. Core structural objects The first group of objects concerns what information is represented, where that information is encoded, how noise acts on the underlying physical degrees of freedom, and how robustness is quantified. On the QEC side, we take as a reference point a sta- bilizer code embed...

  7. [7]

    von Neumann, inAutomata Studies, Annals of Math- ematics Studies, Vol

    J. von Neumann, inAutomata Studies, Annals of Math- ematics Studies, Vol. 34, edited by C. E. Shannon and J. McCarthy (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ,

  8. [8]

    P. W. Shor, Physical Review A52, R2493 (1995)

    1995

  9. [9]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, 10th ed. (Cambridge Univer- sity Press, Cambridge, 2010)

    2010

  10. [10]

    B. M. Terhal, Reviews of Modern Physics87, 307 (2015)

    2015

  11. [11]

    Burak and I

    Y. Burak and I. R. Fiete, PLoS Computational Biology 5, e1000291 (2009)

    2009

  12. [12]

    Chaudhuri and I

    R. Chaudhuri and I. R. Fiete, Nature Neuroscience19, 394 (2016)

    2016

  13. [13]

    Sreenivasan and I

    S. Sreenivasan and I. R. Fiete, Nature Neuroscience14, 1330 (2011)

    2011

  14. [14]

    Zlokapa, A

    A. Zlokapa, A. K. Tan, J. M. Martyn, I. R. Fiete, M. Tegmark, and I. L. Chuang, Physical Review E110, 054303 (2024)

    2024

  15. [15]

    Adams and F

    B. Adams and F. Petruccione, AVS Quantum Science2 (2020)

    2020

  16. [16]

    Neven, A

    H. Neven, A. Zalcman, P. Read, K. S. Kosik, T. van der Molen, D. Bouwmeester, E. Bodnia, L. Turin, and C. Koch, Entropy26, 460 (2024)

    2024

  17. [17]

    T. J. Craddock, inQuantum Effects and Measurement Techniques in Biology and Biophotonics II, Vol. 13340 (SPIE, 2025) p. 1334003

    2025

  18. [18]

    Derakhshani, L

    M. Derakhshani, L. Diósi, M. Laubenstein, K. Piscicchia, and C. Curceanu, Physics of Life Reviews42, 8 (2022)

    2022

  19. [19]

    Wahbeh, D

    H. Wahbeh, D. Radin, C. Cannard, and A. Delorme, Frontiers in Psychology13, 955594 (2022)

    2022

  20. [20]

    K. O. Johnson, Neuron26, 563 (2000)

    2000

  21. [21]

    Y. Li, X. Zhu, Y. Qi, and Y. Wang, Revealing unexpected complex encoding but simple decoding mechanisms in motor cortex via separating behaviorally relevant neural signals (2024)

    2024

  22. [22]

    Safaai, A

    H. Safaai, A. Y. Wang, S. Kira, S. Blanco Malerba, S. Panzeri, and C. D. Harvey, Nature Neuroscience28, 2550–2560 (2025)

    2025

  23. [23]

    W. Xie, J. H. Wittig, J. I. Chapeton, M. El-Kalliny, S. N. Jackson, S. K. Inati, and K. A. Zaghloul, Nature635, 935–942 (2024)

    2024

  24. [24]

    Tkačik, J

    G. Tkačik, J. S. Prentice, V. Balasubramanian, and E. Schneidman, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences107, 14419 (2010)

    2010

  25. [25]

    Boerlin, C

    M. Boerlin, C. K. Machens, and S. Denève, PLoS Com- putational Biology9, e1003258 (2013)

    2013

  26. [26]

    Bourdoukan, D

    R. Bourdoukan, D. Barrett, S. Deneve, and C. K. Machens, in Advances in Neural Information Process- ing Systems, Vol. 25, edited by F. Pereira, C. Burges, L. Bottou, and K. Weinberger (Curran Associates, Inc., 2012)

    2012

  27. [27]

    M. J. Berry and G. Tkačik, Frontiers in Computa- tional Neuroscience Volume 14 - 2020, 10.3389/fn- com.2020.00020 (2020)

    arXiv 2020

  28. [28]

    Calvo, C

    R. Calvo, C. Martorell, A. Roig, and M. A. Muñoz, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 068402 (2026)

    2026

  29. [29]

    L. F. Seoane, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences374, 20180377 (2019)

    2019

  30. [30]

    Calaim, F

    N. Calaim, F. A. Dehmelt, P. J. Gonçalves, and C. K. Machens, eLife11, e73276 (2022)

    2022

  31. [31]

    J. E. Arle, L. Mei, and K. W. Carlson, Robustness in neural circuits, inBrain and Human Body Modeling 2020 (Springer International Publishing, 2020) p. 213–229

    2020

  32. [32]

    Lim and M

    S. Lim and M. S. Goldman, Nature Neuroscience16, 1306–1314 (2013)

    2013

  33. [33]

    Beniaguev, I

    D. Beniaguev, I. Segev, and M. London, Neuron109, 2727 (2021)

    2021

  34. [34]

    Aizenbud, D

    I. Aizenbud, D. Beniaguev, N. Pnueli, I. Segev, and M. London, bioRxiv 10.64898/2026.06.08.730984 (2026)

    work page doi:10.64898/2026.06.08.730984 2026

  35. [35]

    Teeter, R

    C. Teeter, R. Iyer, V. Menon, N. Gouwens, D. Feng, J. Berg, A. Szafer, N. Cain, H. Zeng, M. Hawrylycz, C. Koch, and S. Mihalas, Nature Communications 9, 10.1038/s41467-017-02717-4 (2018)

    doi:10.1038/s41467-017-02717-4 2018

  36. [36]

    Santello, N

    M. Santello, N. Toni, and A. Volterra, Nature Neuro- science 22, 154 (2019)

    2019

  37. [37]

    Kofuji and A

    P. Kofuji and A. Araque, Annual Review of Neuroscience 44, 49 (2021)

    2021

  38. [38]

    K. M. O’Neillet al., Advanced Biology7, 2200269 (2023)

    2023

  39. [39]

    Lee et al., Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA111, E3343 (2014)

    H. Lee et al., Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA111, E3343 (2014)

    2014

  40. [40]

    Murphy-Royal, S

    C. Murphy-Royal, S. Ching, and T. Papouin, arXiv preprint (2022), arXiv:2211.09906 [q-bio.NC]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  41. [41]

    Whitehouse, H

    I. Whitehouse, H. Kang, and W. Losert, npj Unconven- tional Computing3, 10.1038/s44335-026-00067-3 (2026)

    work page doi:10.1038/s44335-026-00067-3 2026

  42. [42]

    V. J. Barranca, Cogn. Neurodyn.20, 23 (2026)

    2026

  43. [43]

    Gottesman,Stabilizer Codes and Quantum Error Cor- rection, Ph.D

    D. Gottesman,Stabilizer Codes and Quantum Error Cor- rection, Ph.D. thesis, California Institute of Technology (1997), arXiv:quant-ph/9705052

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  44. [44]

    C. Ahn, A. C. Doherty, and A. J. Landahl, Physical Review A65, 042301 (2002)

    2002

  45. [45]

    Sarovar and G

    M. Sarovar and G. J. Milburn, Physical Review A72, 012306 (2005)

    2005

  46. [46]

    Kerckhoff, H

    J. Kerckhoff, H. I. Nurdin, D. S. Pavlichin, and H. Mabuchi, Physical Review Letters105, 040502 (2010)

    2010

  47. [47]

    Hairer and G

    E. Hairer and G. Wanner,Solving Ordinary Differential Equations II (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1991)

    1991

  48. [48]

    A. N. Burkitt, Biol. Cybern.95, 97 (2006)

    2006

  49. [49]

    M. R. Freeman and D. H. Rowitch, Neuron80, 613 (2013)

    2013

  50. [50]

    N. A. Oberheim, T. Takano, X. Han, W. He, J. H. C. Lin, F. Wang, Q. Xu, J. D. Wyatt, W. Pilcher, J. G. Ojemann, B. R. Ransom, S. A. Goldman, and M. Nedergaard, The Journal of Neuroscience29, 3276–3287 (2009). 13

    2009

  51. [51]

    Perea, M

    G. Perea, M. Navarrete, and A. Araque, Trends in Neuro- sciences 32, 421 (2009)

    2009

  52. [52]

    Murphy-Royal, S

    C. Murphy-Royal, S. Ching, and T. Papouin, Nature Neuroscience 26, 1848–1856 (2023)

    2023

  53. [53]

    J. A. Noriega-Prieto and A. Araque, Neurochemical Re- search 46, 2580–2585 (2021)

    2021

  54. [54]

    Covelo and A

    A. Covelo and A. Araque, Neuroscience323, 62 (2016), dynamic and metabolic astrocyte-neuron interactions in healthy and diseased brain

    2016

  55. [55]

    Wade, Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience 6, 10.3389/fncom.2012.00076 (2012)

    J. Wade, Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience 6, 10.3389/fncom.2012.00076 (2012)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  56. [56]

    Kang and W

    H. Kang and W. Losert, Phys. Rev. Res.8, 013267 (2026)

    2026

  57. [57]

    O’Loughlin, B

    R. O’Loughlin, B. Oripov, N. Skuda, N. Chongsiriwatana, I. Whitehouse, W. Losert, B. Hayes, A. McCaughan, and S. Buckley, in2026 Neuro Inspired Computational Elements (NICE)(2026) pp. 1–9

    2026